hardinparamedic:Fafai: Ha ha, you sure told me! ...But sure, please call me whatever you like if it means you'll stop pulling the FGM ISN'T THE SAME broken record routine on people who never even hinted at any such thing in the first place.

/Why do you have such a hard-on for the pained tears of little baby boys?//I don't actually believe you do, just thought I'd try your debating style///you disingenuous twat

Oh please. Enlighten us. Tell us uninformed masses how it's the same.Also, it's one of the tactics of the anti-circumcision crowd. Please don't pretend like it isn't. It's even been done by others in this thread.

You're delusional. Look at you, ready to slap that straw an argument onto anyone who disagrees in any capacity. I even specifically said it's not the same thing up thread.

radarlove:Fafai: Abox: FunkOut: radarlove: Well no, it could also mean that intact foreskin hasn't selected out because it's often lopped off in infancy. Like how bad vision hasn't selected out because we invented a tool to make it succeed.

You can tell this is a valid argument by all those Swedish dudes who evolved cut cocks. Think I'll go get it snipped tomorrow.

Holy shiat you have no idea how long evolution takes, huh?

Abox is the one who seems to be saying it might have happened by now it it weren't for circumcision/glasses, and I was ridiculing that.

hardinparamedic:MaestroJ: Correct, however, the foreskin has not been connected to the permanently debilitating diseases that vaccines are used to prevent. The vast majority of the world is in fact, not circumcised, yet STDs are not as prevalent in Europe or Australia like they are in the USA, yet most of them have their foreskins. It couldn't possibly because the foreskin somehow fights STDs there. Perhaps it's a sociological issue such as better sex education?

Really?

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/442617-overview

From your link, only 1% of males over age 17 have an unretractable foreskin. Meanwhile, the complication rate from circumcisions seems to be about 1.5% (from Wikipedia, which provides its source). So the math doesn't work out there for you.

The benefits and risks for circumcision are minimal. It's really a wash (haha!). There's no NEED to circumcise every boy, especially since we as a nation started doing so to keep boys from whacking off (and it didn't even work). Just let your kid decide when he's old enough to understand what's going on.

hardinparamedic:Argyle82: I lol'd at the random, self manufactured stat.... well done.

4/10

I LOL'd at you making an ass out of yourself by calling a statistic manufactured. But since you don't believe me, let's asked the Journal of AIDS Care.

I'm sorry, I missed the part in the research written by Jewish doctors that cutting off a part of the body is good for you. Can you summarize the part where it says, as you claim, that 1/3rd of men with foreskin (which, by the way, most of the world has their foreskin), will have "medical problems" because of having said foreskin?

Also, it's somewhat disturbing that you're so gung-ho about cutting babies. You seem genuinely excited about the procedure. You've posted in this thread like 30 times, citing some random, non-related studies, because, because AIDS IN AFRICA!!!!

Mike Chewbacca:There's no NEED to circumcise every boy, especially since we as a nation started doing so to keep boys from whacking off (and it didn't even work). Just let your kid decide when he's old enough to understand what's going on.

No one has said there is a NEED to circumcise every boy. What people have said is that it should be a decision left to parents after getting both the pros and the cons of doing so.

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque:A study comes out tomorrow stating that removing the tip of a baby's nose will reduce prostate cancer risks by 80% later in life.

There will be permanent scarring, but the nose will still be functional. Do you circumcise your baby's nose?

Except that circumcision doesn't remove the "tip" of the penis. It removes the retractable foreskin surrounding the tip. A more apt way to troll would be "removing the skin around the tip of the nose".

Fafai:radarlove: Fafai: Abox: FunkOut: radarlove:Well no, it could also mean that intact foreskin hasn't selected out because it's often lopped off in infancy. Like how bad vision hasn't selected out because we invented a tool to make it succeed.

You can tell this is a valid argument by all those Swedish dudes who evolved cut cocks. Think I'll go get it snipped tomorrow.

Holy shiat you have no idea how long evolution takes, huh?

Abox is the one who seems to be saying it might have happened by now it it weren't for circumcision/glasses, and I was ridiculing that.

Just countering the point that "humans genetics says they're supposed to look a certain way". Human genetics says there's a foreskin. It also says we have the brains and the thumbs to make tools to change things we don't like...like blurry vision and, for some, foreskin. But even if some people were born without it and that was preferred, foreskin wouldn't necessarily select out since there's circumcision.

hardinparamedic:Fafai: You're delusional. Look at you, ready to slap that straw an argument onto anyone who disagrees in any capacity. I even specifically said it's not the same thing up thread.

The only time I mentioned it in regards to you was here.

You actually brought up FGM for the first time in this post, in which you stated that it was similar.

That was my impression of you frothing at the mouth about FGM where it wasn't warranted, like you tried to do with Jill's Nipples and at least one other poster (the person I quoted there in my all caps post about you being insane).

Fafai:radarlove: Fafai: Abox: FunkOut: radarlove: Well no, it could also mean that intact foreskin hasn't selected out because it's often lopped off in infancy. Like how bad vision hasn't selected out because we invented a tool to make it succeed.

You can tell this is a valid argument by all those Swedish dudes who evolved cut cocks. Think I'll go get it snipped tomorrow.

Holy shiat you have no idea how long evolution takes, huh?

Abox is the one who seems to be saying it might have happened by now it it weren't for circumcision/glasses, and I was ridiculing that.

I think I misread both of you...but kinda don't care. This thread is seriously lacking in pictures or engorged, ruddy, circumcised penises oozing pearly white jizz, so I think it's probably time to abandon it.

For much like the legendary foreskin, this thread has outlived its usefulness.

hardinparamedic:Except that circumcision doesn't remove the "tip" of the penis. It removes the retractable foreskin surrounding the tip. A more apt way to troll would be "removing the skin around the tip of the nose".

That works fine also. Would you remove the skin around the tip of the nose of your son, leaving permanent scarring, in order to lessen the risk of prostate cancer later in adulthood? Why or why not?

Argyle82:I'm sorry, I missed the part in the research written by Jewish doctors that cutting off a part of the body is good for you. Can you summarize the part where it says, as you claim, that 1/3rd of men with foreskin (which, by the way, most of the world has their foreskin), will have "medical problems" because of having said foreskin?

Oh, this one is good. Please demonstrate that any of the authors in those studies have been influenced by Judaism (or are even Jewish), and you're totally not being anti-semitic and/or racist by using stereotypes attached to their names to infer that?

hardinparamedic:Jill'sNipple: I did not say it's the same effect for males or females. Don't misquote me. And, if you're going to insert fake quotes and attribute them to me, at least spell them right.

Critical reading not your strength? I've traveled in the MENA region. I know what the difference is. I oppose genital mutilation for either sex, and never said the harmful effects were the same. Is that too murky for you? Or do you want to make more fake quotes and flag them with my name?

Jill'sNipple:I oppose genital mutilation for either sex, and never said the harmful effects were the same. Is that too murky for you? Or do you want to make more fake quotes and flag them with my name?

Circumcision is not gential mutilation. It IS, however, a medical procedure done with the intent of decreasing the chance of STDs and UTI, decreasing the chance of complications of having a foreskin, and NOT done to prevent someone from having sex. The other is done with the express intent and purpose of mutilating and eliminating the ability for the female to have sex.

If dentists could remove wisdom teeth in early childhood with less complications than waiting until the teen years, would any of you anti-circumcision people protest saying that the decision should wait til the teen years so the kid could make an informed decision? After all, many people would not have problems if their wisdom teeth were allowed to come in. They are removed for convenience, and to prevent the possibility of having a more serious surgery later on. Researchers are looking for a way to prevent wisdom teeth from even starting, so I'm not pulling the possibility out of thin air.I'm one of the lucky ones who never had wisdom teeth.

DocTravesty:12349876: I want your skull: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Circumcision is like cutting off a baby's ears so that it won't have to deal with the hassle of washing behind them later in life.

hardinparamedic:Argyle82: I'm sorry, I missed the part in the research written by Jewish doctors that cutting off a part of the body is good for you. Can you summarize the part where it says, as you claim, that 1/3rd of men with foreskin (which, by the way, most of the world has their foreskin), will have "medical problems" because of having said foreskin?

Oh, this one is good. Please demonstrate that any of the authors in those studies have been influenced by Judaism (or are even Jewish), and you're totally not being anti-semitic and/or racist by using stereotypes attached to their names to infer that?

Actually, I've said repeatedly it should be an informed decision made by parents of that child, in conjunction with their doctor. Please quote where I've been "gung ho" about it.

Argyle82: You seem genuinely excited about the procedure. You've posted in this thread like 30 times, citing some random, non-related studies, because, because AIDS IN AFRICA!!!!

I enjoy pointing out pseudoscience on the internet, and have nothing better to do than enjoy my Redd's Apple Ale and argue with a pedantic troll like yourself tonight.

Nope, not being anti-Semitic at all. If you know anything about linguistics, you'll easily be able to determine which last names are more likely to be Jewish.

If you're Jewish, you're more likely to conduct/make up research that supports your outdated religious ritual, to defend it. Just as if you're circumcised, you're more likely to try to defend it. It's human nature to be illogical to justify your being and your ways.

MarkEC:If dentists could remove wisdom teeth in early childhood with less complications than waiting until the teen years, would any of you anti-circumcision people protest saying that the decision should wait til the teen years so the kid could make an informed decision? After all, many people would not have problems if their wisdom teeth were allowed to come in. They are removed for convenience, and to prevent the possibility of having a more serious surgery later on. Researchers are looking for a way to prevent wisdom teeth from even starting, so I'm not pulling the possibility out of thin air.I'm one of the lucky ones who never had wisdom teeth.

I think you're comparing apples to oranges here. By their very nature, wisdom teeth don't come until later in life. Wisdom teeth for that matter aren't removed if it's seen not to cause a problem. Foreskin is a normal part of anatomy that rarely has any problems with it, and are easily corrected through non-surgical measures, so, I'm having difficulty finding the similarities in your hypothetical circumstance.

hardinparamedic:Circumcision is not gential mutilation. It IS, however, a medical procedure done with the intent of decreasing the chance of STDs and UTI because we've managed to rationalise it after our daddy's daddy started doing it.

Argyle82:Nope, not being anti-Semitic at all. If you know anything about linguistics, you'll easily be able to determine which last names are more likely to be Jewish.

If you're Jewish, you're more likely to conduct/make up research that supports your outdated religious ritual, to defend it. Just as if you're circumcised, you're more likely to try to defend it. It's human nature to be illogical to justify your being and your ways.

Yep. You're not being bigoted and anti-semetic at all.

All those jews just "stick together" because their names "sound jewish", and they all falsify research to "justify" their "rituals".

Oh, you do know that being "Jewish" doesn't make someone a member of the Jewish faith, nor does it make them apt to "lie" for other Jews, right? I mean, you MIGHT sound like a bigot if you tried to promote that idea, so I can see where that silly notion might come from.

hardinparamedic:Argyle82: Nope, not being anti-Semitic at all. If you know anything about linguistics, you'll easily be able to determine which last names are more likely to be Jewish.

If you're Jewish, you're more likely to conduct/make up research that supports your outdated religious ritual, to defend it. Just as if you're circumcised, you're more likely to try to defend it. It's human nature to be illogical to justify your being and your ways.

Yep. You're not being bigoted and anti-semetic at all.

All those jews just "stick together" because their names "sound jewish", and they all falsify research to "justify" their "rituals".

Oh, you do know that being "Jewish" doesn't make someone a member of the Jewish faith, nor does it make them apt to "lie" for other Jews, right? I mean, you MIGHT sound like a bigot if you tried to promote that idea, so I can see where that silly notion might come from.

Yep, from a long time back, from long nights on TFD. I also keep the beer/coffee list for those I disagreed with and argued with but I respect. Your profile shows a given name that may or may not be made up, a crap map, and a reminder when I look that you are, in fact, a bigot. An insecure one at that.

hardinparamedic:Jill'sNipple: I oppose genital mutilation for either sex, and never said the harmful effects were the same. Is that too murky for you? Or do you want to make more fake quotes and flag them with my name?

Circumcision is not gential mutilation. It IS, however, a medical procedure done with the intent of decreasing the chance of STDs and UTI, decreasing the chance of complications of having a foreskin, and NOT done to prevent someone from having sex. The other is done with the express intent and purpose of mutilating and eliminating the ability for the female to have sex.

It's not the same, even by the most remote attempt to make it such.

Look, you're welcome to get all sexually excited about this issue, misquote folks and troll the hell out of this thread, but WOULD YOU PLEASE START SPELLING 'GENITAL' CORRECTLY? I should have known that someone who's too stupid to learn how to clean his own penis without cutting part of it off would also be too stupid to spell the basic terms pertaining to what is apparently your favorite topic.

Boojum2k:MaestroJ: Why is it that I seem to be the most emotionally stable person on this page... yet by all accounts I should be the most distraught? And this is including the people on "my side"

Personal bias. You've actually been a bit histrionic, really, but since to you that's normal you project that out, and since others don't share your experiences you feel like you are the stable one.

Perhaps I was dramatic in one admittedly, though, I was indeed telling the truth when referring to a bloody puberty and medical procedure. Must admit yes, I got more emotional than I probably should have.

I am finding some of the actual biting vitriol here, on both sides, very confusing though. I'll try to sound less dramatic in the future, however.

Argyle82:hardinparamedic: Argyle82: Nope, not being anti-Semitic at all. If you know anything about linguistics, you'll easily be able to determine which last names are more likely to be Jewish.

If you're Jewish, you're more likely to conduct/make up research that supports your outdated religious ritual, to defend it. Just as if you're circumcised, you're more likely to try to defend it. It's human nature to be illogical to justify your being and your ways.

Yep. You're not being bigoted and anti-semetic at all.

All those jews just "stick together" because their names "sound jewish", and they all falsify research to "justify" their "rituals".

Oh, you do know that being "Jewish" doesn't make someone a member of the Jewish faith, nor does it make them apt to "lie" for other Jews, right? I mean, you MIGHT sound like a bigot if you tried to promote that idea, so I can see where that silly notion might come from.

MaestroJ:Boojum2k: MaestroJ: Why is it that I seem to be the most emotionally stable person on this page... yet by all accounts I should be the most distraught? And this is including the people on "my side"

Personal bias. You've actually been a bit histrionic, really, but since to you that's normal you project that out, and since others don't share your experiences you feel like you are the stable one.

Perhaps I was dramatic in one admittedly, though, I was indeed telling the truth when referring to a bloody puberty and medical procedure. Must admit yes, I got more emotional than I probably should have.

I am finding some of the actual biting vitriol here, on both sides, very confusing though. I'll try to sound less dramatic in the future, however.

You've had a personally traumatic experience related to the topic, though extremely rare, it would be surprising if you didn't have an emotional reaction.